Striking the balance

[SonicWhammy]

I rarely come this way, but I felt the need to after my conversations elsewhere.

For the past several years, I've found myself reading and listening to countless fans of the genre at what feels like constant war with each other over the shows of today versus the shows of yesteryear. Be it here, Game Show Forum, Game Show Follies (Steve Abell's place), or wherever, there's always someone ready to seriously trash anyone who likes something they feel should be totally hated. And out of anything, such trash-talking most often skews toward glorfiying the classic shows and faces (ex: Bob, Roger, Richard, Monty, Gene) versus their modern day counterparts (ex: Drew, Mike, Steve, Wayne, Alec).

Now, I don't have a problem at all with anyone saying that the original version or host or whatever was the best version. And to also be fair, there are people who have low opinions of some things today who do engage in constructive conversation, so I want it clear that I'm not making a blanket statement. However, given the times many of us here grew up in, we've just been conditioned to expect our shows, hosts, producers, etc, to be cut from a specific mold that doesn't exist anymore. And for some, it just feels like when you read their comments, you get the impression that since almost nothing from today comes from those classic philosophies, it automatically stinks and deserves to be burned to the ground.

The times have changed, and our shows have done their best to adapt with them. And between forum conversations, my time doing the Game Show Talk & Fun podcasts, and Facebook when I still had it, I always tried very hard to look at the hosts and games of today and ask myself "Does the show work in today's world?" Because, to take an example from here over the years, I realized a long time ago that if I always look at Price saying "Bob/Roger would never allow this to happen", then I'm never going to be satisfied. But looking at Drew on Price today, I feel that he is an excellent host deserving of being considered main event talent across all of the hosts in Price's history. Yeah, he had to learn how to do this right, it took some time, but he was committed enough to this that he did what he had to do and it shows. He just happened to have to do it on one of THE most iconic shows ever. And several of today's hosts of classic shows, mostly of the comic world, I feel are deserving of that same elite credit. And even when I look at original modern day shows (DOND, The Chase, The Wall, Cash Cab, etc.), I continue to ask myself that question, "Does this show work in today's world?"

So to all of you here, I ask three questions:
1) Is there anything in today's game show world anywhere that you truly enjoy and/or have good/great acceptance with?
2) How do you find that balance of enjoying what's on today while always revering the classics that got us here?
3) Do you actually find anything from today to be BETTER than what came before?

I'm very interested to hear what people say.

[pannoni1]

So to all of you here, I ask three questions:
1) Is there anything in today's game show world anywhere that you truly enjoy and/or have good/great acceptance with?
2) How do you find that balance of enjoying what's on today while always revering the classics that got us here?
3) Do you actually find anything from today to be BETTER than what came before?

I'm very interested to hear what people say.

1) Most of the perennials are still very enjoyable to watch and despite the general change in things like technology and social attitude, the game remains the same with a few updated changes, and that even includes the recent revivals like Match Game, $100K Pyramid, and To Tell The Truth. It's the all news where the curveballs come from.
2) The key is to give the new shows that premiere a chance. Shows like Whew!, Hit Man, and Nick Arcade were seen as "edgy" for their time and would have deserved a longer run if they sustained themselves. Of course, the reason why I don't watch GSN too much was the oversaturation of Harvey Feud. That said, I do tend to have a preference towards the classics (and other TV/movies/music in general), mostly due to the atmosphere that wouldn't quite be possible today.
3) Game shows haven't been too revolutionary since the Million Dollar days, and I feel that such a shift is once in a generation. However, I got a little into HQ Trivia last year, but of course, that was an online social interactive show, which hasn't yet stemmed a widespread tide of shows that are similar, and is still too much of a departure from the traditional show.

[SonicWhammy]

By the way, I know it's Casey Abell, not Steve. Hearing all the Harvey haters, his name is stuck on the brain. Moving on!

It's the all news where the curveballs come from.

Define "all news". You lost me there.

Of course, the reason why I don't watch GSN too much was the oversaturation of Harvey Feud.

That's actually died down recently thanks to the high ratings that America Says and the new Common Knowledge have been getting. Have you looked in on them or any other recent originals? I physically don't have GSN anymore so I've been curious to see them. I used to have a lot of fun with Idiotest, but my wife couldn't stand it because she wasn't good at it.

However, I got a little into HQ Trivia last year, but of course, that was an online social interactive show, which hasn't yet stemmed a widespread tide of shows that are similar, and is still too much of a departure from the traditional show.

I'd argue that Idiotest was clever and certainly more different from what most shows before or since have done. I still quiz my students with some of the ones that don't need pictures.

As for HQ, that did get some imitators too. CashShow, Beat the Q, Majority Rules (a Family Feud version), and a couple others I can't recall. They've varied in followings and ability to sustain themselves, and even HQ is suffering a little. But Scott Rogowsky sure isn't going away.

[b_masters8]

1) Is there anything in today's game show world anywhere that you truly enjoy and/or have good/great acceptance with?

This is the only question I feel I can answer honestly, and that is to say, yes, there is one thing I enjoy today, and that happens to dovetail with your previously-stated opinion on the OP: Drew Carey on TPIR now. As I believe it was said by user Teddy in another thread in another subforum on this site (I think it's "The State of TPIR: 2017"), Drew and George are the Bob and Rod of today; I don't know why I agree with that, just that I do.

Also, another thing I like about Drew is whenever a painful loss happens (as earlier, that one contestant undercutting the lower end [the canoes] by $18 in Magic # [the Magic # was set to $1182, and the canoes were $1200]), his reactions to such losses remind me very much of Bob's reactions to such losses (don't know how they do, but to me, they do).

One more thing is that his reactions to big wins and well-played wins (especially well-played wins) remind me as well of when Bob would be jubilant about those by saying "Be-au-ti-ful!" or similar.

In short, while Bob Barker is indelibly written in the annals of television history for being on TPIR as long as he has, Drew has made at least as good a mark in those annals today in his almost 12 years there, and I'll keep seeing it as long as he's there.

[someguy23475]

The higher payouts are better.

The only revival I can really watch is Pyramid. The other shows (TTTT, Family Feud) focus too much on bad comedy and less on the actual game. Match Game has (mostly) unfunny celebrities and terrible hosting. Price is unwatchable partly because of the host, but the annoying contestants hurt too (which started the last few years of Barker’s run). Wheel has too many gimmicks now, and Jeopardy is dumbed down.

I haven’t watched GSN in I don’t know how long.

I miss shows with a flashy set, solid hosting, intelligent contestants, and a good game.

[blozier2006]

I miss shows with a flashy set, solid hosting, intelligent contestants, and a good game.

Amen, brother. Amen.

[SonicWhammy]

The higher payouts are better.

The only revival I can really watch is Pyramid. The other shows (TTTT, Family Feud) focus too much on bad comedy and less on the actual game. Match Game has (mostly) unfunny celebrities and terrible hosting. Price is unwatchable partly because of the host, but the annoying contestants hurt too (which started the last few years of Barker’s run). Wheel has too many gimmicks now, and Jeopardy is dumbed down.

I haven’t watched GSN in I don’t know how long.

I miss shows with a flashy set, solid hosting, intelligent contestants, and a good game.

See, this is the kind of thing I was trying to encourage people not to answer. Liking the current Pyramid is perfectly OK, I enjoy it, too. But the idea that the only game show that works for today is something that was in its prime over 30 years ago because it looks and plays exactly like it did over 30 years ago...

There's NOTHING new that's come along in the last 10 years or so that you think was a good game that's represented "today" well? Or is the only thing that can work the kind of show that literally no one is or wants to make anymore?

(PS: I don't think Jeopardy is dumbed down at all. My track record has always been the same all these years: Decent main game, stink at Final.)

[someguy23475]

Deal or No Deal was good very early on, until the gimmicks appeared. Spending fifteen minutes on a person’s family or multiple million dollar cases hurts the actual game.

[pricefan18]

Deal or No Deal was good very early on, until the gimmicks appeared. Spending fifteen minutes on a person’s family or multiple million dollar cases hurts the actual game.

On this.....you know what ELSE I think kills it? Maybe moreso now than even back then? The freaking SPOILERS, either during shows, or especially BEFORE they air. How are you really able to get fully invested into something when you already know long ahead of time a good portion of what is going to happen (ie: the no deals) before it does? It doesn't make me want to watch as a viewer, it makes me want to not care.

[tpir04]

 I think I can honestly say that I enjoy the classics that ABC has recently put out for our enjoyment (specifically the Sunday night revivals of $100k Pyramid and TTTT, as well as the Alec Baldwin Match Game). I find them all enjoyable and I am glad to see that they are still on the air. Whereas Match Game 1998, as well as the 1997, 2002 Donnymid, and 2012 Pyramid versions all crashed and burned, each of the aforementioned game shows have survived for at least three years (at least that's what I've heard) Also, if you notice, 2016 Pyramid and 2016 MG bear a striking resemblance to their 70s counterparts, as to the design of the set, albeit with some LCD updates, which, in my humble opinion,  look quite nice. The theme songs of 100k and MG have also been revived instead of some new trash that the producers want to use- the original music is a big part of what I enjoy about them.

[SonicWhammy]

On this.....you know what ELSE I think kills it? Maybe moreso now than even back then? The freaking SPOILERS, either during shows, or especially BEFORE they air. How are you really able to get fully invested into something when you already know long ahead of time a good portion of what is going to happen (ie: the no deals) before it does? It doesn't make me want to watch as a viewer, it makes me want to not care.

OK, I will definitely give you guys this, it too is my one pet peeve of today's games. I am absolutely a DOND fan, and I've played it in my classroom many times over the years. But NBC and Fox ruin show after show with egregious use of the spoiler. NBC and Fox are the worst culprits of this. NBC killed the million dollar wins with it (especially the first one). Heck, even GSN ruined a couple good episodes of The Chase with the spoilers.

I mean, spoilers could work IF you chose bits and pieces that didn't have key background information in them that gave away everything around it. Just saw a commercial for next week's DOND as I was typing this that actually accomplished it. But the in-show spoilers are junk, they screw it up every time. Basically, spoilers are the "add celebrities to play the game" of today.

Trust in your game, networks, let us actually be surprised. We WILL watch if it's a good show, we promise.

I think I can honestly say that I enjoy the classics that ABC has recently put out for our enjoyment (specifically the Sunday night revivals of $100k Pyramid and TTTT, as well as the Alec Baldwin Match Game).

Same thing I asked before, tpir. Anything NOT old-school on the air in recent years attracted you? Or at the least, is there anything beyond the old-school feel of the revivals that you think is good?

[tpir04]

Same thing I asked before, tpir. Anything NOT old-school on the air in recent years attracted you? Or at the least, is there anything beyond the old-school feel of the revivals that you think is good?

As a matter of fact, there is. Aside from NBC's WoF and J! and TPIR and LMAD on CBS, I'm looking forward to Spin the Wheel, which is supposedly going to premiere on FOX later this season, although i haven't seen anything about it as of now. Another newcomer is The Wall (NBC). I don't believe it's a lot like Plinko, as the trivia questions and the fact that there are two contestants working mostly independently for much of the game, puts a real twist on the show. And yes, ladies and gentlemen, GSN does churn out a few good ones every now and then, as in Idiotest and Divided. I enjoy Idiotest because I always enjoy brain games, and Divided because of the knuckleheads at the end, arguing about what percentage of cash earned each should get (I know it's staged.) I have not yet seen America Says and Common Knowledge, so I cannot make an honest judgment yet.